Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Gun Control Again

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control Again
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 1104 of 5179 (686634)
01-02-2013 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1092 by crashfrog
01-02-2013 4:23 PM


Re: Statistical Blindness
crashfrog writes:
But again, both CS and I have several times asked, what's the point in being concerned about gun deaths specifically? Dead is dead. Homicide is homicide, and I can't see the social interest in merely shifting gun homicides to an equivalent number of knife homicides, rat-poison homicides, necktie homicides, or bare-hands homicides.
I think you're basing this on your belief that the US is inherently more homicidal than the rest of the world, and that if you took away their guns people would simply find another way and the same number of murders would still happen. I haven't seen any data supporting this. Naturally some murders would still happen, some wouldn't.
You're broadly interchanging "gun deaths" and homicides and, it feels to me, hoping we won't notice as you switch back and forth.
By "homicides" you mean "gun homicides"? If so, then I can only guess you're referring to the large number of gun suicides? Hopefully when it makes a difference I get the nomenclature right, but could you step the paranoia down another notch? Not everyone out there is a diabolical bastard plotting ways to underhandedly manipulate discussion at obscure discussion boards.
About unintentional gun deaths, according to the statistics I've seen they are a small percentage of the total, maybe a couple percent, so since they're not the focus of discussion it matters little whether they're included in the overall figures or not.
If by "homicides" you instead mean "all homicides", then no, I'm not confusing "gun deaths" with "all homicides".
How could you develop a database of murders that didn't happen?...It beggars belief to suggest that it doesn't ever happen...
No one is arguing that it doesn't happen. As I pointed out to Faith in Message 1017:
Percy in Message 1017 writes:
But no one is arguing that guns are never successfully used for self-defense. The point is that the number of gun deaths is proportional to gun prevalence. What you're offering as a counterargument isn't a counterargument at all, it's just additional relevant information. Even if we assume your counterargument that taking away our guns will leave us helpless before criminals is totally true, it doesn't change the fact that gun deaths are proportional to gun prevalence. Your solution to the crime problem, increasing gun prevalence, will only increase gun deaths. For the sake of making a point let me grant Crash's position that fewer guns means higher crime rates. To most of the rest of the civilized world where life is more precious than money trading higher crime rates for lower death rates would be an excellent tradeoff.
...
It is also important to note that guns used to thwart crimes are not often used in the defense of one's life. It is rare when the criminal's intent is murder. The goal is usually robbery, rape, etc. This is why I keep referring to the irony of the gun-lobby argument. They want to arm the citizenry and put everyone's life at greater risk in order to thwart crime whose predominate goal is coercion and theft, not murder. Anyone who believes life is most precious above all else but supports the gun lobby has some serious inner contradictions to work out.
About this:
Eternal vigilance is required for a gun to be an effective deterrent, but a gun once owned is a threat that never ends.
That's really a ridiculously stupid thing to say, and I would say it typifies the fetishistic fear and power gun opponents frequently attribute to firearms.
It's actually an incredibly true thing to say, as gun owners are not some breed of superhuman, and so they get angry or drunk or careless or whatever just like all human beings.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Clarify paragraph on gun homicides versus gun deaths.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1092 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 4:23 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1117 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2013 9:20 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1105 of 5179 (686637)
01-02-2013 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1093 by crashfrog
01-02-2013 4:25 PM


Re: Statistical Blindness
crashfrog writes:
I was explaining why the best-fit line makes sense by describing what we know must be mathematically true, that 0 guns must correspond to 0 gun deaths, and that the line can only rise from there.
Yes, I heard you the first half-dozen times, and my reply is again to remind you that there - 0,0 - is precisely where the line does not rise from.
I don't know how to be any clearer than that. It doesn't go anywhere near 0,0, much less rise from it.
I'm talking about two different things.
One thing is the best-fit line.
The other is an ideal mathematical relationship.
Then I compare the best-fit line to the ideal mathematical relationship and describe how the best-fit line is consistent with what the ideal mathematical line would lead one to expect.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1093 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 4:25 PM crashfrog has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(3)
Message 1109 of 5179 (686644)
01-02-2013 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1096 by New Cat's Eye
01-02-2013 4:42 PM


Re: Statistical Blindness
Catholic Scientist writes:
But we don't know if the 2nd gun in existence would increase the number of gun deaths or stop the 1st gun from being used.
Say you have a gunless population of one million. You give a gun to someone at random and the odds of gun deaths increase. You give a 2nd gun to someone at random. What are the odds of those two guns coming together in the same place at the same time? Now add a 3rd gun and figure the odds of any two of them coming together in the same place at the same time. Now add a 4th gun...well, you get the idea.
Until you get thousands and thousands of guns in the population the odds of any two of them appearing together at the same place at the same time is minuscule. In other words, the odds of a person with a gun being threatened by someone who also has a gun is minuscule. You can pretty much count on the line on the graph of guns plotted versus gun deaths to rise linearly for the first few thousand guns.
You and Crash are arguing that at some saturation point guns produce a deterrent effect. This argument is hampered by a couple of factors: lack of data, and lack of realistic scenarios. The reason for the lack of data is obvious and not anyone's fault, but the data is still missing and so one cannot argue that if there were data that it would support their position.
The lack of realistic scenarios has been described before. Several times. Criminals are ready, you're not. Criminals pick the time and place. Carrying concealed is an enormous pain in the neck, and in many situations it isn't practical or even possible. Guns in the home are locked up, unloaded and useless for home defense, and if they're not then they're incredibly dangerous because of aforementioned reasons that I'll just summarize as "people are stupid."
The fact of the matter is that a gun is more likely to be used against family, friends, intimate others and co-workers than anyone else. Under most circumstances, bringing a gun into a home makes everyone less safe.
That's why tougher penalties for gun crimes is a better idea.
I'd agree with you if it were gun crimes I was worried about, but I'm worried about gun deaths, and I think the penalties for murder are pretty tough already. And anyway, the deterrent effect of laws has got to be pretty poor for crimes committed while someone is angry or scared or threatened or drunk or on drugs or some combination.
So if you do end up carrying your gun on your hip as you're out and about, when the criminal sticks a gun in your face pull out your wallet and not your gun. Your life is far more precious than money.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1096 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-02-2013 4:42 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1111 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-02-2013 5:57 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1112 of 5179 (686685)
01-02-2013 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1111 by New Cat's Eye
01-02-2013 5:57 PM


Re: Statistical Blindness
Catholic Scientist writes:
Say you have a gunless population of one million. You give a gun to someone at random...
Well that's just stupid, no offense.
I was attempting to clarify the relationship between guns and gun deaths by describing what happens when you keep everything the same while gradually increasing just a single variable from 0, in this case the number of guns in a population.
Until you get thousands and thousands of guns in the population the odds of any two of them appearing together at the same place at the same time is minuscule.
Not if they're made at the same place...
Not if the 2nd gun is brought to the 1st gun because the 1st gun exists.
Well, again, we're trying to keep everything the same except the number of guns, including the way people behave. Gun owners don't normally seek out confrontations with other gun owners, and except for friends don't really have any idea who the other gun owners are.
Your analogy just doesn't seem to be relevant at all.
It isn't an analogy, it's an attempt to help understanding by describing what happens when you vary a single variable at a time. This is the standard approach to understanding anything, vary one thing and see what happens. Look at it another way. There was a time when guns hadn't been invented yet. No guns, no gun deaths. After the invention of guns, one would expect that gun deaths would increase with increasing gun prevalence. Nothing else makes sense or is even possible.
You and Crash are arguing that at some saturation point guns produce a deterrent effect.
No, I'm saying it could and you have nothing to show that it doesn't, therefore your insistance on an increase in guns meaning an increase in gun deaths is unwarranted.
But we don't have "nothing". We have statistics showing that increasing gun prevalence correlates with increasing gun deaths. You have speculation. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but it does mean that we have data supporting our position and you don't.
I don't agree with the desciptions that concealed carry is an enormous pain in the neck nor that carriers are not ready.
No one can ever sneak up behind you and whisper, "Stick 'em up?" Really? You're eternally vigilant always and everywhere, no criminal could ever get the drop on you? You're never distracted, you're ever watchful, scanning back and forth across all the people within your vision, turning around every few seconds while you walk down the street, carefully peering into every ally before walking by?
In the real world you'll never see the criminal coming. You'll be confronted by the criminal unexpectedly from out of the blue.
And where will you be carrying this concealed weapon? Underneath one of various jackets that you always wear no matter the weather? While you're jogging? At the beach? At the neighbors? At little Johnny's softball game where you're umpiring? In restaurants?
The gun in my home isn't locked up and it has a loaded mag sitting right beside it. Its not incredibly dangerous because there's nobody there right now and its hidden.
You're gun is hidden in a place where "there's nobody there right now?" I'm not sure what that means. Do you mean nobody's home right now? That doesn't matter since it's still where your family spends most of its time. Or do you mean the gun isn't kept where you live? In that case it's no good for home defense.
Anyway, you're missing the point. The easier you make access to the gun in the event of break-in, the easier you make unintended access - in other words, the more dangerous the gun becomes. The more guns you hide around the house because you never know in what part of the house you'll be when the criminal breaks in, the more likely you make unintended access.
Naturally you're going to place the gun and the ammunition somewhere that maximizes the safety of you and your family, but this consideration works against the gun being sufficiently available and ready in the event of break-in. In the vast majority of break-ins the intent is not murder, while the danger of the mere presence of a gun is ever constant.
It didn't for me. And I'll keep my right to make that desicion myself rather than loosing it based on what all the stupid people are doing.
You wouldn't describe yourself as passionate and impulsive?
But reducing gun-using criminals will reduce the gun deaths.
Well, yes, of course, but most homicide victims are killed by people they know, not criminals.
I'm not talking about murder. I'm talking about the illegal posession or usage of a gun.
Well, you began responding to the subthread where Crash and I were discussing gun deaths. If you're actually talking about gun crime then much of what I've been saying doesn't apply.
And anyway, the deterrent effect of laws has got to be pretty poor for crimes committed while someone is angry or scared or threatened or drunk or on drugs or some combination.
Then gun laws aren't going to do anything for that anyways.
People who don't have guns can't commit murder with a gun.
So if you do end up carrying your gun on your hip as you're out and about, when the criminal sticks a gun in your face pull out your wallet and not your gun. Your life is far more precious than money.
Okay, well thanks, um... you don't forget to wear your seatbelt!
I was serious. Don't try to be a hero.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Clarify.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1111 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-02-2013 5:57 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1113 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-03-2013 2:29 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1114 of 5179 (686708)
01-03-2013 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1113 by New Cat's Eye
01-03-2013 2:29 AM


Re: Statistical Blindness
Hi CS,
I was hoping to use the hypothetical scenario to establish a common baseline of agreement before branching out, but since that isn't working out and no other avenues for finding common ground occur to me at the moment I'll just demur for now.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1113 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-03-2013 2:29 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1121 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-03-2013 10:18 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 1115 of 5179 (686710)
01-03-2013 8:35 AM


Study: "Stand Your Ground" Laws Increase Homicide Rates
I think what I find most concerning about gun rights advocates is their unwillingness to acknowledge the dangers of gun possession. Concerns I've raised about how, exactly, defense against a criminal is actually going to work out in reality without threatening one's own safety and the safety of those around them have been consistently ignored or dismissed.
This belief that being armed and standing up to criminals increases one's safety has been codified in some states in stand-your-ground laws. A study released last month by Texas A&M associate professors Mark Hoekstra and Cheng Cheng reveals that stand-your-ground laws increase homicide rates. Here's the abstract:
From 200 to 2010, more than 20 states passed castle doctrine and stand-your-ground laws. These laws expand the legal justification for the use of lethal force in self-defense, thereby lowering the expected cost fo using lethal force and increasing the expected cost of committing violent crime. This paper exploits the within-state variation oin self-defense law to examine their effect on homicides and violent crime. Results indicate the laws do not deter burglary, robbery, or aggravated assault. In contrast, they lead to a statistically significant 8 percent net increase in the number of reported murders and non-negligent manslaughters.
PDF: http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdf
Switching now from stand-your-ground laws to the risks of gun ownership in the home, I recently chanced across this 1998 study: Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home. It showed that guns are far more likely to cause injury and death in episodes having nothing to do with self-defense. From the abstract:
RESULTS: During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
CONCLUSIONS: Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 1120 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2013 9:50 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(3)
Message 1165 of 5179 (686802)
01-04-2013 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1117 by crashfrog
01-03-2013 9:20 AM


Re: Statistical Blindness
crashfrog writes:
I think you're basing this on your belief that the US is inherently more homicidal than the rest of the world, and that if you took away their guns people would simply find another way and the same number of murders would still happen. I haven't seen any data supporting this.
Your own data supports this. The US has a much higher incidence of homicides in all weapons categories.
It gets tiresome constantly having to interrupt meaningful discussion to correct things you make up, but anyway...
No, crash, my data does not support your belief that the US is inherently more homicidal than the rest of the world. No data supports this.
Your conclusion is actually wrong for two reasons. First there's the data, and I think non-firearm homicides are most relevant here. There's a table at the Wikipedia article on Gun Violence titled Intential homicides by country, take a look at the column titled Non-firearm homicide rate per 100,000 pop. For your edification here's a sorted selection of western-style countries from the table, (naturally if this were just a random selection you'd see that some countries have not just a higher rate than the US, but a far higher rate):
CountryNon-firearm homicide rate per 100,000 pop.
Switzerland0.40
Slovakia0.48
Germany0.70
Ireland0.78
Denmark0.83
New Zealand0.99
Spain1.00
Canada1.04
Slovenia1.21
Australia1.26
England & Wales1.33
Chile1.37
United States1.58
Hungary1.61
Portugal1.63
Finland1.76
Poland5.18
So clearly the US doesn't have the highest non-firearm homicide rate in the world, not even among western style countries, but moving on to the second reason you're wrong, homicide rate statistics cannot validly be used as a proxy for the inherent homicidal tendencies of entire nations (which is a psychological assessment anyway, and psychology is a notoriously soft science). Economic, environmental and other factors play significant roles.
So your conclusion that in the absence of guns that all gun deaths would have occurred anyway but by other means has no support. Obviously some deaths would still occur, some wouldn't. Gun deaths occur for a wide variety of reasons, from the spur-of-the-moment murder of passion which would never have happened had a gun not been available, to the contract murder which would happen no matter what. Statistics about actual homicides encompass these situations and the entire range in between. That's why we use statistics to build our understandings of reality.
If by "homicides" you instead mean "all homicides", then no, I'm not confusing "gun deaths" with "all homicides".
Well, except that you have been.
Well, no, except that I haven't been. This is just you being you again, distracting attention from a losing argument by making things up. For you it's a debate technique that yanks discussion into rat holes having little or nothing to do with the topic as people attempt to defend themselves against false accusations that you just never give up pursuing.
If I'm right about this then in your reply you will again charge me with confusing "homicides" with "all homicides". I hope it doesn't pan out this way, but given your history I'm not too optimistic. You'll probably sift through my old replies looking for the inevitable ambiguous references that are part of everyone's contributions in discussions like this, including your own.
It was nonsense when you said it to Faith and it's nonsense now. "Theft" isn't the only kind of crime, after all. When we say crime we don't always mean "theft." Sometimes we mean "murder." Frequently we mean "rape."
I mentioned rape at one point, and in another place I used the term "coercion" as encompassing of rape. Or was I required to explicitly mention rape in every sentence, else I'm violating the rules of Crash?
And anywhere that could be considered "civilized", we would vastly prefer that a rapist be shot and killed than a woman be raped. Or a man, for that matter. But somehow that self-defense situation always falls down the memory hole; for whatever reason, you and your side always construe self-defense as between two equally-matched combatants in stand-up, toe-to-toe fisticuffs.
No, Crash, I don't think that self-defense fits into the narrow scenarios you keep arguing about with others. I have been and continue to argue statistically. I have been and continue to point out the wide variety of situations involving gun deaths. When you leave the house with your gun (this is the impersonal you, of course), one of the possibilities is that you'll run into someone who keeps hitting you and won't stop and (for whatever reason) flight is not a possibility and so you need your gun. And one can imagine many, many other situations where a gun is at least worthy of consideration, but these are just a fraction of all situations that could result in gun deaths. Statistics encompass all these situations, and statistics say that overall you are in more danger of gun death if you own a gun than if you don't.
Now I know that you and CS and many gun owners feel you're all special, that you're actually safer with a gun than without, but statistics say you're more likely wrong than right. Probably 95% of gun owners feel they're above average in matters ranging from gun handling to judgment in complex rapidly evolving situations, but obviously a great many of them must be wrong. Most people's personal assessments of their own abilities are overestimated. The fact that many gun owners don't understand or acknowledge the danger they're putting themselves in doesn't change the fact that they *are* placing themselves at greater risk of gun death.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1117 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2013 9:20 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1182 by crashfrog, posted 01-04-2013 8:01 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 1166 of 5179 (686805)
01-04-2013 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1120 by crashfrog
01-03-2013 9:50 AM


Re: Study: "Stand Your Ground" Laws Increase Homicide Rates
crashfrog writes:
It's been you who refuses to acknowledge the danger of not having a gun when you need one.
Over and over again in this thread it has been said by the gun rights side that we refuse to acknowledge that guns can be used effectively for self-defense, and over and over again we have answered that of course we accept this possibility.
But when rolled up statistically into all gun deaths it turns out that one is at less risk of gun death when one doesn't own a gun.
A study released last month by Texas A&M associate professors Mark Hoekstra and Cheng Cheng reveals that stand-your-ground laws increase homicide rates.
One potential criticism of this study is that "homicide rates" includes justifiable self-defense homicides.
Of course it include "justifiable self-defense homicides," but the mere fact that you raise this point indicates you're missing the important implications. Stand-your-ground laws change the nature of what is considered a "justifiable self-defense homicide." For example, it isn't uncommon for both parties to claim they were standing their ground (obviously these cases of gun use didn't result in death). And courts are finding that increasing numbers of accused murderers are using the stand-your-ground laws by simply claiming that they felt threatened (George Zimmerman in the Florida case is of course the famous recent example). An obvious side-effect of any perceived success for such claims will be an even greater decrease in reticence to resort to lethal force.
And the times when the gun was used for self-defense without being fired? Not statistically captured, of course, so assumed not ever to have occurred.
Again, if no statistics for this exist then you cannot argue that they would support you if they did. The Wikipedia article on Gun Violence in the United States has a discussion about attempts to study this statistically, see the section on Self-protection. Now you can cite Kleck to support your position, and the other side can cite McDowall and Hemenway.
Tangle and NoNukes already noted the similarities of the gun lobby to the tobacco lobby (see Message 734 and Message 738). In a very similar way the gun lobby is creating confusion in people's minds by casting doubt on the statistics and by building a mythology about the effectiveness of guns for self-defense. But the fact that the mere presence of guns increases the likelihood of gun death is inescapable. It doesn't matter whether you* believe it or not, you're at greater risk of gun death if you own a gun.
--Percy
*You = the impersonal you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1120 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2013 9:50 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1170 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-04-2013 10:31 AM Percy has replied
 Message 1188 by crashfrog, posted 01-04-2013 8:51 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1169 of 5179 (686811)
01-04-2013 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1121 by New Cat's Eye
01-03-2013 10:18 AM


Re: Statistical Blindness
Catholic Scientist writes:
Well that's disappointing... I put too much time into that to be happy with a simple hand-wave.
It wasn't a handwave, and that you put any effort into your post other than the typing wasn't evident. It was predominately one-line dismissals, sometimes a little longer.
What, exactly, is the common ground that you want to establish? That raising the number of guns increases the number of gun deaths? I can assume that for the sake of discussion.
Really? Just like that you're going to accept that mathematically we know that 0 guns must correspond to 0 gun deaths? Even after all your objections? And you're also going to accept that as the number of guns in a population increases that the number of gun deaths must also increase and that the incidence rate of deterrence must necessarily be negligible until gun prevalence reaches some level? After all your arguments about how invalid this position is?
So please pardon my skepticism about your newfound openness, but you were dismissing everything I said, and in such an environment it didn't seem likely there was any possibility of finding common ground. I find it hard to believe you're going to change your approach. We're not going to get anywhere if I, for example, state that I'm trying to vary a single variable at a time, and you respond with:
You are failing to focus on one variable.
And that's all you say. What am I supposed to do with that? At another point you say:
By focusing on the single asymptote, really!?
Asymptote? What asymptote? There's no asymptote. And that's all you say. What am I supposed to do with that? And then there's the ridiculous:
Um... no. People can't just sneak up behind me. I'm neither deaf nor blind. There's situations where they can, sure, but so what?
In response to the assertion that criminals will try to catch you unawares you say that people can't sneak up behind you, but sometimes they can, but so what? What am I supposed to say to that?
Or how about this:
Pssht. The last time a criminal approached me he walked right up to my face and asked me for help.
You're seriously offering anecdotal stories like this to question a criminal's ability to catch you unawares? Really? Are you serious? What am I supposed to say to this?
These examples are typical of your post and that's why I demurred. If you want to make a second attempt at a reply to my Message 1112 then feel free, but don't do it for my sake, and I make no promise to respond if it's just more nonsense and brief dismissals.
I think what I find most concerning about gun rights advocates is their unwillingness to acknowledge the dangers of gun possession.
Are you kidding? Have you never seen a list of Range Rules:
I wasn't questioning the NRA's gun safety rules or gun training. I'm sure it's all excellent. I was stating my concern that, despite everyone's best efforts, putting guns in the hands of people makes everyone around them less safe.
I agree gun ranges are very safe, but since you mention them, check this out: Death at the Gun Range: Five Firearm Deaths in Firearm-Friendly Environments. The accident involving Christopher Bizilj is particularly sad, since if he had never been on a gun range he would still be alive.
But that doesn't mean that its difficult to be safe with a gun.
I'm not arguing that it is. I'm arguing that despite the best efforts for the development of effective safety rules and the development and offering of effective training programs, the presence of a gun makes everyone in the vicinity less safe, not more safe.
Okay, but why should I let the fact that those idiots in Memphis are shooting each other determine whether or not I would be better off having a gun?
It wasn't just Memphis. It was Memphis, Seattle and Galveston. And I'm not trying to convince you that you would be better off without a gun. That *would* be the ecological fallacy that Crash keeps accusing me of. What I'm arguing is that if you believe you're safer with a gun that the statistics say you're more likely wrong than right.
You and Crash and the gun advocates are correct that this *is* an issue of individual rights, but in any society individuals always make sacrifices for the greater good. We as a society make these decisions by voting for our representatives who carry out our will. The statistics tell us that if we reduce gun prevalence in the US that we'll also reduce gun deaths. If we do reduce gun prevalence then it is undeniable that some will die who would otherwise live (this is the gun rights concern), but it is equally undeniable that even more, potentially many, many more proportional to the degree of reduction, will live who would otherwise die.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1121 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-03-2013 10:18 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1172 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-04-2013 11:03 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1171 of 5179 (686816)
01-04-2013 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1170 by New Cat's Eye
01-04-2013 10:31 AM


Re: Study: "Stand Your Ground" Laws Increase Homicide Rates
Catholic Scientist writes:
But the fact that the mere presence of guns increases the likelihood of gun death is inescapable. It doesn't matter whether you* believe it or not, you're at greater risk of gun death if you own a gun.
No, that is the Ecological fallacy.
No, CS, it is not the ecological fallacy. Most times you can drop into the impersonal you and people can tell just from context, but I was afraid Crash would misinterpret it and accuse me of the ecological fallacy yet again, so I put an asterisk there (see it? you quoted it). Checking the asterisk we see it says:
Percy in Message 1066 writes:
*You = the impersonal you.
And of course, "you" is both the singular and plural form of the second-person personal pronoun.
Over and over again I have said I'm arguing statistically. Invariably what I write, what anyone writes, cannot be completely unambiguous, so I will grant up front that a careful reading of my posts in this thread will reveal many instances of ambiguity. Please stop playing gotcha.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1170 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-04-2013 10:31 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1183 by crashfrog, posted 01-04-2013 8:05 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 1174 of 5179 (686822)
01-04-2013 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1172 by New Cat's Eye
01-04-2013 11:03 AM


Re: Statistical Blindness
Look, CS, thanks for the offer, really, but it's just over the top for me. You want me to consider scenarios of zombie apocalypse and alien invasion? Seriously? And your explanations precede your objections by several paragraphs, and I'm supposed to follow that? Seriously? You want me to just answer the question that followed your contradictory statement that people can't sneak behind you but sometimes they can? Seriously?
No thanks, but let me address a couple of the more reasonable points you just made.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Nobody is 'ready' because someone could potentially sneak up behind them? Is that what you meant?
No, "sneaking up behind you" was just one example. The actual point is simple and indisputable. The criminal is ready and you're not. The criminal picks the time and place, you don't. The fact that you're carrying doesn't give you superhuman powers of observation, and it certainly doesn't give you any advantage over an armed criminal. When both the criminal and the victim are armed then it makes it more likely that a gun will be used. That's one reason you're less safe if you carry.
About this next thing, I take back what I said earlier about only addressing your more reasonable points, this is just so absurd I just have to reply:
Or how about this:
Pssht. The last time a criminal approached me he walked right up to my face and asked me for help.
You're seriously offering anecdotal stories like this to question a criminal's ability to catch you unawares? Really? Are you serious?
Actually that was in response to the assertion that "In the real world you'll never see the criminal coming". And it proves it wrong.
We were talking about the criminal's advantage because he can catch you unawares. Are you seriously offering this ridiculous (whether it really happened or not, it's still ridiculous) anecdotal story as rebuttal? Seriously? I mean, come on CS, seriously? And putting a literal focus on hyperbole ("you'll never see the criminal coming") so you can take an interpretation that clearly was never meant? Seriously?
That's why I'm saying ,"No thanks," to this stuff.
Assuming that's true, I'm not convinced the cost is worth it. The ramifications of an unarmed populous are not worth the insignifcant reduction in 'deaths by gun' that would result.
Except that the deaths caused by the prevalence of guns is not insignificant. This is just something you've convinced yourself of in denial of all the data.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1172 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-04-2013 11:03 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1176 by DBlevins, posted 01-04-2013 12:59 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 1181 of 5179 (686853)
01-04-2013 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1176 by DBlevins
01-04-2013 12:59 PM


Re: Statistical Blindness
Thanks!
If any of the guns rights participants post their reactions to that video it will be interesting to hear what they have to say. The student exercise was only one narrow and specific scenario, but during the course of the entire story I thought it did a good job illustrating how fraught with bewildering confusion any such life-threatening incidents are, and how difficult it is to react appropriately, accurately and, most importantly, without putting the innocent at risk.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1176 by DBlevins, posted 01-04-2013 12:59 PM DBlevins has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 1189 of 5179 (686863)
01-04-2013 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1182 by crashfrog
01-04-2013 8:01 PM


Re: Statistical Blindness
Crash, you're just cycling through the same list of accusations that you cast at everyone who disagrees with you. This is all a well established pattern with you. Everyone's seen it before and you're not fooling anyone. Give it a break.
Who's making stuff up, here? I don't recall saying that the US has the "highest non-firearm homicide rate in the world."
I said that you believe the US is inherently more homicidal than the rest of the world, and you responded (and I quote), "Your own data supports this." So that's what I rebutted.
You continue to make things up through the rest of your post, it's all garbage and there's no point responding to any of it, none of it has anything to do with the topic. It is amazing how completely unaware you seem to be that only a strong paranoia could lead someone to believe that everyone's always misrepresenting him.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1182 by crashfrog, posted 01-04-2013 8:01 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1191 by crashfrog, posted 01-04-2013 9:19 PM Percy has replied
 Message 1192 by Panda, posted 01-04-2013 9:20 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1204 of 5179 (686882)
01-04-2013 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1196 by crashfrog
01-04-2013 9:30 PM


Re: Statistical Blindness
Crash, once again, you're in effect in a room full of people looking at you funny while you're screaming at everyone else that it's them that's crazy. Think about it. For once.
If you keep your focus on the topic and cease all the accusations you'll be making it a lot easier for this thread to focus on the topic. You're by far the biggest offender of the prohibition against becoming personal, and then as people begin increasingly commenting about your behavior you have the nerve to invoke the prohibition against becoming personal? You are unreal.
You and CS believe more guns will reduce gun deaths, the other participants believe more guns will increase gun deaths. If you can manage to talk about that instead of about all the offenses you think others are committing then things should go much better.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1196 by crashfrog, posted 01-04-2013 9:30 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1206 by crashfrog, posted 01-04-2013 10:19 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 1209 of 5179 (686899)
01-05-2013 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1183 by crashfrog
01-04-2013 8:05 PM


Re: Study: "Stand Your Ground" Laws Increase Homicide Rates
crashfrog writes:
But that's not true for everyone, and for those people, regardless of what the statistics say, owning a firearm makes them objectively safer.
No one is disputing that some people in some situations may be safer with a gun than without, but it is the task of government to make decisions regarding conflicting interests. We vote for our chosen representatives at the various levels of government who try to enact laws that are best for the people they represent and for the country overall. It is very common for some laws to affect some people positively and others negatively.
Asserting that that can't ever be true - and making a law against private ownership of firearms is making that assertion -...
Passing a law against private ownership of firearms is not an assertion that no one is ever safer with a gun. It's an attempt to trade off conflicting interests for the greater good. Gun deaths in this country will plummet if such a law is ever passed, and that would be a wonderful thing.
But a complete prohibition against private ownership of firearms isn't what most gun control advocates are seeking. That's why they're called gun control advocates instead of gun prohibition advocates.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1183 by crashfrog, posted 01-04-2013 8:05 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1216 by crashfrog, posted 01-05-2013 9:28 AM Percy has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024